[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240614082758.6pSMV3aq@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 10:27:58 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 08/15] net: softnet_data: Make xmit.recursion
per task.
On 2024-06-12 13:18:29 [-0400], Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:44:34 +0200
> Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> > Softirq is preemptible on PREEMPT_RT. Without a per-CPU lock in
> > local_bh_disable() there is no guarantee that only one device is
> > transmitting at a time.
> > With preemption and multiple senders it is possible that the per-CPU
> > recursion counter gets incremented by different threads and exceeds
> > XMIT_RECURSION_LIMIT leading to a false positive recursion alert.
> >
> > Instead of adding a lock to protect the per-CPU variable it is simpler
> > to make the counter per-task. Sending and receiving skbs happens always
> > in thread context anyway.
> >
> > Having a lock to protected the per-CPU counter would block/ serialize two
> > sending threads needlessly. It would also require a recursive lock to
> > ensure that the owner can increment the counter further.
> >
> > Make the recursion counter a task_struct member on PREEMPT_RT.
>
> I'm curious to what would be the harm to using a per_task counter
> instead of per_cpu outside of PREEMPT_RT. That way, we wouldn't have to
> have the #ifdef.
There should be a hole on !RT, too so we shouldn't gain weight. The
limit is set to 8 so an u8 would be enough. The counter is only accessed
with BH-disabled so it will be used only in one context since it can't
schedule().
I think it should work fine. netdev folks, you want me to remove that
ifdef and use a per-Task counter unconditionally?
> -- Steve
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists